The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The justices today posted a notation on the court’s Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.

The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses.

San Francisco city officials and civil rights groups then challenged a state family code law that restricts marriage to a man and a woman, as well as a 2000 voter-approved ballot initiative that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A San Francisco trial judge declared the ban unconstitutional, but a divided state appeals court in 2006 upheld the law, concluding that it is up to the voters or Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, not judges.

The state Supreme Court is reviewing that ruling.

The justices appeared divided on the issue when they considered arguments in March. The state attorney general and conservative organizations opposed to gay marriage are defending the law.

A ruling in favor of gay marriage could stoke a political firestorm in the fall if a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage in California makes it onto the ballot. A decision on whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot is expected in June.

More in News

Three women have told the New York Times that music mogul Russell Simmons raped them, the latest in a cascade of serious allegations of sexual misconduct against powerful men in entertainment, media, politics and elsewhere.

Last month, Texas-based Cold River Records filed a lawsuit against the company’s former artist, alleging Armiger’s on-air commentary constituted a breach of a non-disparagement agreement included in the settlement of a previous 2016 lawsuit between the two parties.